Model comparison
Gemma 2 27B vs Qwen3.7 Max
Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.4 to 29.2 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 2 27B costs 5.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.7 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 27B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.7 Max in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.7 Max leads 62.3 to 10.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 1.4% for Gemma 2 27B and 95.6% for Qwen3.7 Max.
- Gemma 2 27B is cheaper at $0.65 / $0.65 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $7.50 for Qwen3.7 Max.
- Qwen3.7 Max accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 8K.
- Gemma 2 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.7 Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 29.2 | 51.4 |
| Released | 2024-06-24 | 2026-05-19 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 8K | 1M |
| Max output | 2K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.65 | $2.50 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.65 | $7.50 |
| Results tracked | 34 | 33 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.7 Max leads
Gemma 2 27B: 33.5 (#243), Qwen3.7 Max: 50.2 (#43)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1211 | 1498 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 77.3% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1515 |
| SciCode | — | 48.8% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 42.8% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 36% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 52.5% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 1,189 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemma 2 27B: —, Qwen3.7 Max: 21.8 (#129)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| GBAEval | — | 0.4% |
Reasoning Qwen3.7 Max leads
Gemma 2 27B: 14.8 (#313), Qwen3.7 Max: 48.4 (#36)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1199 | 1483 |
| DTBench | 48% | 92.3% |
| LMCA | 7.1% | 44% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 122.06 | 153.74 |
| SimpleBench | — | 70.4% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 85.1% |
| CritPt | — | 13.4% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 19% |
| EBR-Bench | — | 9.5% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 28.1% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 32% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 47.9% | — |
| LiveBench | 38.2% | — |
Math Qwen3.7 Max leads
Gemma 2 27B: 10.0 (#306), Qwen3.7 Max: 62.3 (#26)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.4% | 95.6% |
| LMArena Math | 1212 | 1488 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 64.6% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 34.1% |
| ProofBench | — | 26% |
| LiveBench Math | 26.5% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 27.9% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.7 Max leads
Gemma 2 27B: 18.9 (#275), Qwen3.7 Max: 61.7 (#24)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 36.5% | 90.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1172 | 1488 |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 55.8% |
| Confabulations | 27.1% | — |
| MMLU | 75.7% | — |
Multilingual Qwen3.7 Max leads
Gemma 2 27B: 38.8 (#221), Qwen3.7 Max: 57.1 (#13)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1217 | 1475 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1221 | 1533 |
| LMArena Russian | 1234 | 1482 |
| LMArena French | 1246 | — |
| LMArena German | 1209 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1175 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1174 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1228 | — |
Instruction Following Qwen3.7 Max leads
Gemma 2 27B: 60.7 (#244), Qwen3.7 Max: 76.9 (#34)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1206 | 1460 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 58.1% | — |
Long Context Qwen3.7 Max leads
Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#213), Qwen3.7 Max: 45.4 (#34)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1231 | 1484 |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.7 Max leads
Gemma 2 27B: 44.4 (#220), Qwen3.7 Max: 65.2 (#52)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1231 | 1476 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1241 | 1450 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1224 | 1482 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1110 |
| LiveBench Language | 32.6% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2 27B better than Qwen3.7 Max?
Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.4 to 29.2 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 2 27B costs 5.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.7 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3.7 Max?
Gemma 2 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.65 per million input tokens and $0.65 per million output tokens; Qwen3.7 Max lists at $2.50 and $7.50.
Is Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3.7 Max better for coding?
Qwen3.7 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.2 versus 33.5 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.7 Max does, with 1M tokens against 8K.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 27B and Qwen3.7 Max share?
17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 27B has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Max has 33.